Will The Australian Protectionist Party And The British National Party Part Company? Will The Australian Protectionist Party Now Split?
October 9 2010
The Australian Protectionist Party (APP) has long made a lot of its connection with the British National Party (BNP). According to APP 'ideologues' in years past, the BNP with its 'hard' anti Islamist line would appease the Zionist lobby and win public acceptance. The establishment political and media elites would thus become more tolerant as the BNP 'successfully' blurred the edges between its patriotism and official neo-conservatism, whilst its so-called respectable course towards the mainstream was presented as just another hard conservative force but with clean leaders and an acceptable style - would permit it to catapult itself forwards with new voters and new adherents. It would grow out from isolation freed of the label of 'extreme right', or 'fascist' or - even the insult of 'Nazi'.
This was seen as the model for the APP. The APP was designed at the first instance to leap the nationalist cause out of isolation. The APP founders stated brazenly that the cause was isolated because of certain bad leaders and bad image. They claimed that the people rejected nationalism because the leadership cadre failed to give proper attention to credibility. The APP leaders said at first that they were in fact nationalists, but more so that they were clever nationalists, able to discern failed strategies and formulas and ready to pioneer new ones. They promised to clean up nationalism. What the BNP had done for British nationalism, they would do for the Australian scene.
Time has moved on. The BNP has now hit upon hard times. The BNP's fortunes crashed with the British General Election (no: we take no pleasure from that!) but we would argue that it was the BNP's strategy which has revealed itself as mistaken. Let us first grasp the nature of this major political failure - and test where it leaves APP.
The BNP Snookered From Both Sides
The BNP was snookered in a strategic 'clever game'. The BNP entered onto the anti-Islamist territory. Here, they felt the path to the mainstream was open. At first, the party raised its profile and it attempted to realise its new strategic plan. Membership rose and some media was favourable.
Here we make a point: there is a vast difference between being critical of Islamic migration and following the road of anti-Islamism. The former is reasonable; the latter is an ideological position that makes anti-Islam the key to one's overall position - on foreign policy, domestic alliances and so forth.
Anti-Islamism proved a dangerous master. Onto the same territory entered the BNP"s old competitor on matters of British freedom, the UK Independence Party (UKIP). The UKIP offered a very 'non-racial' way on the matter of immigration and it offered itself up in particular as another critic of Islamic migration. As a softer-than-the-BNP option, it could appeal to BNP voters and potential members.
And then, about 18 months ago - a side-swipe. The English Defence League (EDL) was formed.
Let us make it clear. The EDL is a dirty tricks op. Composed of football hooligans, a few disgruntled 'racists' from the past, a swathe of non-white folks drawn of Arab, black and other backgrounds, it offers a multiracial but 'English', challenge to Moslems and radical Islamists. The group has a 'Jewish Division' led by a lady called Moore who has made it very clear that Jewish persons have been in the lead of this thing from day-dot. The EDL supports Israel internationally and it calls on the Jewish community to mobilize behind it.
In the way the EDL is opposed by the usual 'anti-fascists', we see the usual half-truth methods that only really convince us that the leadership of the Left in Britain know what this thing is. It is no fascist beast. It is no racist beast. It is a violent safety valve (that demands watching), but one that also serves the higher agenda of disintegrating the genuine anti immigration movement.
The EDL threatens to push the BNP off the ground of its own choosing. It offers a harder version of BNP politics just as UKIP offers the softer version. The BNP has been snookered.
The BNP has proscribed the EDL, making it an organizational offence for BNP members to join it or associate with it. All the while, the EDL eats away at the BNP's clientele.
We could say that the anti-Islamist ground is not a mainstream place, but a swamp where all the road-signs are under water!
We have noted that the BNP's Australian apes have a different view of the EDL, one that suggests a parting of the ways.
The APP And The EDL
The Sydney organizer of the BNP (Mr. Nicholas Folkes) wrote in the on-line comments section of (British) New Statesman (June 29):
"The Jewish people have the most to lose with the Islamisation of Britain. As some commentators have said, "Jewish leaders are mostly left wing" and this will be their destruction if Patriotic British Jews do not support groups like the EDL. Western people all over the globe are in the same struggle to stop the advancement and appeasement of Islam so Christians, Jews and Atheists unite against the Islamo-Fascists".
The Jewish people have what ….? One would have thought the peoples of Britain would lose out under any extension of Islamic influence, but here we see the shameless appeal to "patriotic British Jews" to support a group the BNP proscribes.
Not that the BNP can talk. It has appealed to the same clientele, not as the old National Front did when it had the support of a small sliver of East London Jewish opinion on the matter of non-white immigration in the 1970's and when that party opposed Zionism, but rather the BNP has appealed to Jews who support Israel and who serve Zionism to support it as the best ally of Zionism. The BNP has just been outflanked.
So what is this Mr. Folkes doing? As we shall see, the APP wants to win control of the EDL's Australian franchise - the would-be 'Australian Defence League' (ADL).
Of course, the British National Party cannot really permit its Australian ape to have relations with the very group it would, albeit for its own opportunist reasons, proscribe - even if those 'relations' are partly obscured and are under-the-table.
The question is now: will they part company? Yet, we could also ask: do certain leaders in APP really care?
For some time now, the APP has worked to establish an Australian Defence League. We know that the ADL has subsumed some of the former Southern Cross Soldiers and that an American person who resides in the Sydney suburb of Engadine has worked to establish the group and link it to the APP. It hoped to launch itself on September 26 but it has also put forward another launch-date.
If the APP controls an ADL and if the ADL managed to launch itself as a multiracial, militant conservative and pro Zionist force, then a major provocation would be operative. If the ADL became the focus of APP efforts, how would that fit with the group's 'moderate' style, its supposed nationalism and its BNP connection? Obviously, it would all be incongruous. Is this where the APP has ended up?
The Logic Of Opportunism
Opportunism has a logic of its own. The anti-Islamist genie has conjured up a line of least resistance and it is a line that demands firm action against the 'world plague' of our time (as the APP sees Islam). The ADL line just takes it all to its logical conclusion. It demands an end to inaction and compromise with nice folks and soft activity. It wants the angry anti-Islamists to take to the Australian streets, to copy the 'successes' of the EDL.
It may become the case that the Australian opportunists will now split on the very principle that first united them.
The opportunists will now have to see if they can all sit in the one party and mouth the same slogans of mainstreamism, or whether the clarion call to arms will split them between the half-way and the full-way on the matter of Islam.
Home: Defend Australian Nationalism